Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Correction to Text; Getting Real

"Common sense" is often wrong. Reality is often counter-intuitive. That the earth is round and yet people can stand at any position on the globe without falling into space is counter-intuitive... but reality nevertheless. It turns out that in areas where science contradicts traditional knowledge or common sense, people are resistant to accepting science. And this seems to be innate - children cannot fully understand the round earth problem that I described above until they are about 8 years old, according to a recent study published in the journal SCIENCE.

Evolution isn't even counterintuitive, but it does contradict the information that many have been spoon-fed by supposed 'authorities' throughout their early development. I guess that's why some of those among us have such a hard time accepting it.

Give it a whirl!

1. In regard to your comment:

"These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task."


You probably didn't notice that I gave you that option of explaining them evolving simultaneously:

My challenge from original posting:
Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

Why don't you give it a whirl and let us know how they start out?

2. In regard to your comment:

"Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk."

Why is it that you guys get so confused?

Unless you can PROVE that mutations and natural selection can create new organs, it's your faith, not science.

Again, why don't you give it a whirl? Keep in mind that you don't even have to prove it ever occurred - It's total fantasy within biological limits!

Don't any of you guys want to prove us wrong?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

watvh as this argument is destroyed easily. No where in evolution does it state that only one organ or system can evolve at a time. These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task.

Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The mouth or tongue?
The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Brian, Please Explain

You ask:

"Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution."

Please explain which version of evolution you are referring to. Gould was searching for evidence of the "steady transformation of its ancestors" because that is what Darwin specified many times in his theory.

Kindly clarify what you meant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Re: Brian, Please Explain

In a sentence, punctuated equilibrium vs. steady rate evolution. I haven't read every edition of the Origin of Species, so I'm not sure if Darwin specified PE in his original theory, but it's my understanding that pretty much all current supporters of the theory of evolution (myself included) support the idea that evolution occurs in rapid bursts followed by long periods of stasis. (I have read also that Darwin made the idea of PE pretty clear, but again, I have not read that myself in his writing, and I don't want to cite a second hand source. It's immaterial anyway.)

This model makes sense to me since evolution is driven by changes in environment, which (often) occur rapidly (on the geological timescale). With that model in mind, what would we expect to see in the fossil record? Well, exactly what we do see.

It's a nice premise. Where's the proof?

We have no problem you believing it as freedom of religion is your rite.

It may be true, but there is NO evidence of it ever occurring in the past and NO observation of it occuring presently.

So, again, where is your evidence that PE is factual and should be considered science, instead of just your faith in it?

Re: It's a nice premise. Where's the proof?

The evidence for PE is the fact that a large number of fossils exist with distinctive, "fully formed" features, while a very small number of fossils exist in which features are intermediate between an ancestor and its progeny.

Where is your proof?

In regard to your comment:

"The evidence for PE is the fact that a large number of fossils exist with distinctive, "fully formed" features, while a very small number of fossils exist in which features are intermediate between an ancestor and its progeny."


Provide ONE example of an intermediate with "partially formed" features or explain in detail why they don't exist.

How nice that at least SOME TRUTH is getting to students:

“Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’ in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago...The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."

Richard S K Barnes, Peter Calow, Peter J. W. Olive, David W. Golding and John Spicer, ‘The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis’ (textbook), Updated 2000, Blackwell Publishing

Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins

Gradualism, as Gould suggested, "is more a product of Western thought than a fact if nature..." (the Panda's Thumb, page 184), but Richard Dawkins said: "If you throw out gradualism, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation," (as quoted in Evolution and Other Fairy Tales, by Larry Azar, 2005).

Gould came up with PE because the evidence of gradualism did not show up in his investigations:

"I wish only to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks." -ibid, page 181.

Do you therefore accept the defects in Darwin's original premise, and if so, what do you do with poor Mr. Dawkins?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

In a sentence, punctuated equilibrium vs. steady rate evolution. I haven't read every edition of the Origin of Species, so I'm not sure if Darwin specified PE in his original theory, but it's my understanding that pretty much all current supporters of the theory of evolution (myself included) support the idea that evolution occurs in rapid bursts followed by long periods of stasis. (I have read also that Darwin made the idea of PE pretty clear, but again, I have not read that myself in his writing, and I don't want to cite a second hand source. It's immaterial anyway.)

This model makes sense to me since evolution is driven by changes in environment, which (often) occur rapidly (on the geological timescale). With that model in mind, what would we expect to see in the fossil record? Well, exactly what we do see.

Re: Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins

John,
That quote of Dawkins' is taken so far out of context that I won't dignify it with a response. I strongly suggest you carefully question everything that you read in the Azar book. I also suggest you find that quote (I believe it's from The Blind Watchmaker), read it in context, and then decide if you trust Larry Azar.

Finally, I accept that there are parts of Darwin's original theory that have required modification to better fit the last 150 years of observation. These aspects are minor and do not change the fundamental tenets of the theory. Modification of this type is ubiquitous is science and has occurred for EVERY theory that has ever been proposed.

You May be Right

Brian:

You may be right about Darwin's quote. I will check it out this weekend and get back to you. If it is taken far out of context it is a disservice. If not, it is pertinent. I do know that assertions that Gould's Panda quotes are taken out of context are baseless, at least as far as the quotes I have used are concerned, because I have the book. May I suggest you get a copy of The Panda's Thumb? You can get it used on Amazon for .99 cents (or new in the store for $16.00), and everyone who cares about the subject should have a copy. He brings up PE in the chapter I often quote from.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John,
That quote of Dawkins' is taken so far out of context that I won't dignify it with a response. I strongly suggest you carefully question everything that you read in the Azar book. I also suggest you find that quote (I believe it's from The Blind Watchmaker), read it in context, and then decide if you trust Larry Azar.

Finally, I accept that there are parts of Darwin's original theory that have required modification to better fit the last 150 years of observation. These aspects are minor and do not change the fundamental tenets of the theory. Modification of this type is ubiquitous is science and has occurred for EVERY theory that has ever been proposed.

Brian, Please Explain THIS Richard Dawkins Quote

Here is a quote from his Watchmaker book, as provided by a reputable online bookseller:

Chapter 3 - Accumulating small change

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.

This does not suggest to me that he is willing to throw out Darwinian gradualism, and the essence of the quote by Azar is very close to this one. Compare:

"If you throw out gradualism, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation."

PE is sudden, sequestered change, and Gould came up with it because gradualism did not fit the evidence:

"The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."

Panda, page 182.

It seems to me that Gould is engaging in double talk somewhat, because he wants to have it both ways, since Darwin is FAMOUS for gradualism, as Dawkin's affirms. But is is also plain to see that he is chucking out gradualism as unworkable re the evidence, which Dawkin's clearly does not want to do.

I would have to say, that the known paragraph and Azar's sentence are congruent. If Dawkin's did not say exactly that, he said something very much like it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John,
That quote of Dawkins' is taken so far out of context that I won't dignify it with a response. I strongly suggest you carefully question everything that you read in the Azar book. I also suggest you find that quote (I believe it's from The Blind Watchmaker), read it in context, and then decide if you trust Larry Azar.

Finally, I accept that there are parts of Darwin's original theory that have required modification to better fit the last 150 years of observation. These aspects are minor and do not change the fundamental tenets of the theory. Modification of this type is ubiquitous is science and has occurred for EVERY theory that has ever been proposed.

Re: Brian, Please Explain THIS Richard Dawkins Quote

The quotes are totally unrelated. The first, from Azar's book, says that evolution is not tenable without gradualism. Dawkins neither believes this nor writes this. The quote is out of context.

The second quote says that complex organisms cannot arise by chance. This is true. "The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival."

Again, they are not related. And the quote that Azar has chosen is a great example of Azar's dishonesty.

Re: Re: Brian, Please Explain THIS Richard Dawkins Quote

The quotes are closely related, and if Azar is so far off, show the Dawkins' quote in context and show us how your accusation has any foundation. I bet you can't.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The quotes are totally unrelated. The first, from Azar's book, says that evolution is not tenable without gradualism. Dawkins neither believes this nor writes this. The quote is out of context.

The second quote says that complex organisms cannot arise by chance. This is true. "The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival."

Again, they are not related. And the quote that Azar has chosen is a great example of Azar's dishonesty.